Hey People,

I played a couple of games during worlds and we didn't use the, when a general is put into your graveyard you can choose to remove it from the game.

Also the way it is worded currently confuses me. Is it removed normally, or removed as a general. Maybe we should have a general zone. just trying to make things more complicated (I love that

Also I did not find anything what happens when an opponent STP's your general. Aren't there special rules in places for handling that as well.

Just wondering,

Hope to play you in Geneva.

Some people don't play that way, it's far inferior to my mind, since something like a mono-red General becomes totally untenable owing to the lack of any kind of reanimation or graveyard return in the colour.


I thought the rules page here (when it's accessable - I have a permission refused message at the moment for it) made liberal use of the term "General Zone"....what have you read instead? Usually StP allows return to General Zone too.

Hey Gis! Great to hear you're still involved in the EDH good times.



Many groups (including some PT old-timers) haven't adopted recurring generals yet, preferring "old school" rules. We're hoping to standardize the rules on something nice and clear, then bring everyone around to using them. I'll be in Geneva, lobbying for people to try it... it really does add something to the game.



You're not the only one . When we originally wrote up the rules there was indeed a "General Zone"... it made the wording clearer. Unfortunately, some people didn't like the interaction with wishing for their general. Opinions on both sides have been gathered for the past few months in several test groups, and we'll be releasing an official new PG^H^H^H general rule in the near future.

There is also some ongoing discussion about additional costs for playing a general again, to prevent it from being abused. Increasing mana-cost was found to be too clunky by one group, but additional costs such as X life or removing the top X cards of your library each time you replay your general have proved simple and effective. Ideally, players should be required to protect their general somehow without relying on the recursion rule... but not fear playing it at all.



The idea behind the current wording is that the general is simply "RFG'd" if it would be put into the graveyard... so Swords to Plowshares, Incinerate or Final Judgment would have the same result as destroying the creature.. the general in question can be re-played. If the rules are changed back to using a "General Zone", anything which was RFG'd would also be moved to the general zone instead.



It's gonna be great!

Gavin

"If a player's General would go to the graveyard, it is removed from the game instead. The player may then play the General from the RFG, as at the start of the game, with the exception that the player may not replay the General on the same turn it was RFG'd."

That means you'd still have to pay at least 6 for your less than 6 General. The last part keeps crazy mana-generating recursion (Greater Good and friends) from happening. As Gavin said, we're discussing options (and some groups are already playing/experimenting with) for making it a little more expensive to replay the General.

The General recursion rule is designed to help Generals be more than just color-determiners. The downside we've found is that it makes Hasty Generals really, really good. Razia became almost impossible to deal with in my old group.

Nonetheless, my current feeling is to make the General recursion rule [O]. Gavin, Duncan, and I will further discuss, and inputs are of course welcome.

I'm actually enjoying the "Remove a land you control from the game: Remove your general from the game from any zone except the library. Play this ability as a sorcery and only once each turn." ability we've been playing with at SB lately.

It allows cheap generals and more expensive generals alike to see play on a more consistent basis, which should be the point.

Perhaps this isn't the thread, but I thought the whole generals cost six thing was to hose Rofellos. It occures to me, that if the format reverted to restricting basics Rofellos could do what, generate two green if you had both forest and snowcovered forest? As general, you couldn't have additional dual land forests as he's mono green and they wouldn't be. It also neatly neuters decks that consist of little more then basic land search and board sweepers relying on general recursion for the win. 'Course non basic land hate becomes more powerful, but perhaps that wouild be a job for the banned list, much like online tribal wars bans engineered plauge and Tasbos decree.

As for more 'general' rules, perhaps someting like this, unless it's already been tried?
-----------------------------
New Zone: The General Zone! This zone is not the same as the removed from game zone and may only ever contain one card, the players designated 'General'. Generals in this zone are face up. Generals may be played from this zone at any time they could ordinarily be played if they were in the players hand, or other zone of the players choosing (allowing for the scourge of stormgald here!) and are considered to have been played from that zone instead of the general zone for all relavent game effects.

Generals: All generals gain the super type 'General' and the following triggered abilities:

If a permanent with the super type 'General' would enter any other zone asides from the players hand from play the General is placed in that players general zone instead and that player loses 3 life. this triggered ability may not be countered or altered by card effects.

If a card with the super type 'General' would enter any other zone asides from play or on the stack from players hand the General is placed in that players general zone instead and that player loses 3 life. this triggered ability may not be countered or altered by card effects.

Players also gain the following special action: Pay 3 life: Place a Permanent or Card with super type 'General' in your general zone. Play this ability any time you could play a land.
-----------------------------
Any holes, or is it whole?

I think the recursive nature both helps and hinders weenie generals. I means they can be expended more freely, but it also means that your recureing a lesser character in the end game.

Rerstricting basics would be horrible. It would GREATLY reduce the ease for new players to build decks, and for old players to build new decks.
Hell, I had trouble making my Vig deck true Highlander, and I work behind the Sentry Box card counter! Making a monocolour deck nearly becomes unfeasible.
Just because Rob beat you with his Sliver Queen deck doesn't mean that land grab + Wrath + 7/7 General is an unbeatable strategy, either.

Anyways. As for your rules solution, I like it. You wording is a little clunky, though (for instance, according to the last ability, you can pay three life to steal another player's general).
More elegantly stated, with the intent intact (I think):

If a General would be put into a graveyard or removed from the game, put it into it's owner's General Zone instead. That player loses 3 life. This ability doesn't use the stack.

Pay 3 life: Put a General you control into it's owner's General Zone. Play this ability any time you could play a sorcery. This ability doesn't use the stack.

BKM's point here is very true. Since Rofellos as a General is the problem, we've decided to simply remove that problem (Ban Rofellos in that role) with the next set of rules updates, to be released shortly. A number of other changes will also be forthcoming, including changes to the 6 mana rule and how general recursion is handled.

The two wordings suggested (matt and eddie) for general recursion do have a few problems (starting, as a point of amusement, with being able to remove someone else's general).. but has a few things worth considering. At this point there's a fairly good consensus as to what we're looking at, including that a 3-4 life cost is insufficient.. however we'll give them both a bit more consideration.

Gavin

If you've already reahed a consensus, perhaps forther suggestions become moot, but here are a few anyhow:

Additional costs:

* sacrificing a land (or two)
* discard
* more life?

Etc.

* Generals have suspend
* Generals have finite extra lives (3-5, perhaps with a way to earn 1UPs. Might make a neat subgame.)

I knew I forgot something. Is their a 'Phased' zone? it occures to me, that my wording prohibits general phasing...

As for an additiona cost perhaps:
Remove a card in hand from the game, if you can not, remove the top ten cards from your library from the game.

What I would not like to see are costs requiring book keeping or memory. This is my main count against increasing costs is then you have to count how many times it's died. I could see a case for finite lives in that you need a certain number of copies of your general and you leave their 'corpse' where it rests when it dies and bring in a new copy if you choose from your reserve. but that creates it's own rules headaches.

Restricting basics wouldn't be that bad. When I built my deck for the first time I had twice the land I needed and they were all unique mind you, it was three colours. Perhaps, while we're tinkering with the rules, we might re-write the land composition rules, perhaps: A decks lands must all be able to produce, or fetch lands that produce, at least one mana of that decks colours. All colours that may be generated by that land that are not the controling players colours will be treated as colourless. 'Course this still allows a great dearth of forests for Rofellos, eight more. Perhaps not unreasonable? This would also reverse the previous desicions reflecting what fetchlands could be included in a deck.

For the record, in the games I've played with Robs Sliver Queen deck, I've never actually been beaten down by said queen or lost as a direct consequence of his deck, indirect consequences are another matter. Most recently I succomed to Mitchels red deck in a four player game, after Robs board sweeper. Thought, in a duel, I'm fairly certain he'd win with an overwhelming number of sliver tokens, but then, my FNM record would count against any boasts of playskill I'd make. I just found basic land fetch to be a dull play experiance, but I'll openly admit that I'd work to make the format suit my tastes and I have a distaste for basics and to a certain extent board sweepers, though general recursion helps with that somewhat.

I've split this conversation off into its own thread to keep the "anouncement" thread a bit more clean.



I tend to agree, but most of the 'finite resource' costs that we tried (life, milling) didn't really work. One that was suggested as a varient on "finite lives" was that your general did 4 points of General Damage to you each time you played it (without reducing your life total).. but it wasn't widely accepted.



I think I speak for the rule committee when I say that basic lands will never be restricted. It would run completely contrary to one of the main goals of the format, which is that new players with small collections can hope to compete with the Sheldons, Duncans and Alexes of the world . Like many things, it's very much a "style" choice.. and style is best left to individual choice. (For that matter, enforcing it would take away the option of advanced players to pimp out their deck by going hardcore highlander).

Gavin

We've actually tried 'cards from hand' already? It would seem that that would be the one resource that usually becomes increasingly precious with time, thus increasing the virtual general cost while the actual cost remains fixed. it would also neutralise the card advantage gained by replaying the general. except perhaps with Lysolda... but shes a card advantage engine by herself in this format.

I find that EDH has some analouges with games like Legend of the Five Rings where each player gets some baseline resources that can't be taken away, in L5R's case strongholds and their attendant gold production. In EDH that baseline would be your general.

I'd almost advocate just restocking the general with each removal with no penalty. Yes, it would make generals extreemly resistant to 'kill' as removal, so you'ld either need recursive kill, or some kind of tap down, like rathi trappers, or perhaps target can't attack this turn, or something like cessation that recures itself. if it wasn't for the seperate general damage track I'd even say spirit loop as an answer. Infact I think Spirit loop would be the awnser for say Kerevek the mercerless... if he shoot you, you gain the life... Its a question of how significant the Elder Dragons should be in Elder Dragon highlander

The problem with that is that cards in hand aren't a finite resource (at least, not till you deckyourself).. you get more each round. This, as you pointed out, makes generals very difficult to deal with permenantly, which gets annoying really quickly. IMO players should be able to play their General without too much fear, but should still have to make some effort to protect it. If every card you draw is your general, there's no risk.

Some colours even get more cards than others, which is bad.. all colours should have equal access to recursion -- that's why we tried "RFG a land you control" not "sacrifice a land you control".

G